Finally - Updated
I enjoyed Senator Barack Obama's speech last week. But what I've found most compelling are the other Democrats' responses to his tough talk. At the AFL-CIO summit tonight, Senator Dodd firmly came out as being a pussy. And Senator Clinton resorted to fear-mongering tactics that sounded like Karl Rove was advising her campaign. When I can find a transcript I'll post. For now, there's a decent clip available at Crooks and Liars.
Call me crazy, but I truly believe that had President Gore been in office in 2001, there is a good chance that the 9/11 attacks would not have happened. For two reasons. I think a Gore administration would have had more respect for the correct type of intelligence activities, instead of politicizing the shit out of everything. And I think that Al Qaeda was hoping for our response to be as outsized and misdirected as it was.
Senator Obama, more than any of the GOP candidates, is echoing the attitude of 1980 era Ronald Reagan. The message of "the shit you're getting away with is going to stop the day I'm inaugurated."
Senator Clinton scolded Obama for saying that Nuclear Arms are not an option in tackling terrorists. Saying it was inappropriate to take options off of the table. Funny. It's only inappropriate when someone else says it, I guess.
On the topic of Senator Obama's "lack of experience" in foreign policy. Thank your own comforting make believe deity. What has our foreign policy expertise done for us in the last 6-1/2 years? One of the Senator's advisers released this statement. I won't make a habit of quoting this type of thing at length, but this one is good:
August 3, 2007
To: Interested Parties
From: Samantha Power -- Founding Executive Director, Harvard University Carr Center for Human Rights Policy
Re: Conventional Washington versus the Change We Need
It was Washington’s conventional wisdom that led us into the worst strategic blunder in the history of US foreign policy. The rush to invade Iraq was a position advocated by not only the Bush Administration, but also by editorial pages, the foreign policy establishment of both parties, and majorities in both houses of Congress. Those who opposed the war were often labeled weak, inexperienced, and even naïve.
Barack Obama defied conventional wisdom and opposed invading Iraq. He did so at a time when some told him that doing so would doom his political future. He took that risk because he thought it essential that the United States “finish the fight with bin Laden and al Qaeda.” He warned that a “dumb war, a rash war” in Iraq would result in an “occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.”
Barack Obama was right; the conventional wisdom was wrong. And today, we see the consequences. Iraq is in chaos. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the threat to our homeland from terrorist groups is “persistent and evolving.” Al-Qaeda has a safe-haven in Pakistan. Iran has only grown stronger and bolder. The American people are less safe because of a rash war.
Over the last few weeks, Barack Obama has once again taken positions that challenge Washington’s conventional wisdom on foreign policy. And once again, pundits and politicians have leveled charges that are now bankrupt of credibility and devoid of the new ideas that the American people desperately want.
On each point in the last few weeks, Barack Obama has called for a break from a broken way of doing things. On each point, he has brought fresh strategic thinking and common sense that break with the very conventional wisdom that has led us into Iraq.
Diplomacy: For years, conventional wisdom in Washington has said that the United States cannot talk to its adversaries because it would reward them. Here is the result:
* The United States has not talked directly to Iran at a high level, and they have continued to build their nuclear weapons program, wreak havoc in Iraq, and support terror.
* The United States has not talked directly to Syria at a high level, and they have continued to meddle in Lebanon and support terror.
* The United States did not talk to North Korea for years, and they were able to produce enough material for 6 to 8 more nuclear bombs.
By any measure, not talking has not worked. Conventional wisdom would have us continue this policy; Barack Obama would turn the page. He knows that not talking has made us look weak and stubborn in the world; that skillful diplomacy can drive wedges between your adversaries; that the only way to know your enemy is to take his measure; and that tough talk is of little use if you’re not willing to do it directly to your adversary. Barack Obama is not afraid of losing a PR battle to a dictator – he’s ready to tell them what they don’t want to hear because that’s how tough, smart diplomacy works, and that’s how American leaders have scored some of the greatest strategic successes in US history.
Barack Obama’s judgment is right; the conventional wisdom is wrong. We need a new era of tough, principled and engaged American diplomacy to deal with 21st century challenges.
Terrorist Sanctuaries: For years, we have given President Musharraf hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid, while deferring to his cautious judgment on how to take out high-level al Qaeda targets – including, most likely, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. Here is the result:
* Bin Laden and Zawahiri – two men with direct responsibility for 9/11– remain at large.
* Al Qaeda has trained and deployed hundreds of fighters worldwide from its sanctuary in northwest Pakistan.
* Afghanistan is far less secure because the Taliban can strike across the border, and then return to safety in Pakistan.
By any measure, this strategy has not worked. Conventional wisdom would have us defer to Musharraf in perpetuity. Barack Obama wants to turn the page. If Musharraf is willing to go after the terrorists and stop the Taliban from using Pakistan as a base of operations, Obama would give him all of the support he needs. But Obama made clear that as President, if he had actionable intelligence about the whereabouts of al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan – and the Pakistanis continued to refuse to act against terrorists known to be behind attacks on American civilians – then he will use highly targeted force to do so.
Barack Obama’s judgment is right; the conventional wisdom is wrong. We need a new era that moves beyond the conventional wisdom that has brought us over-reliance on an unreliable dictator in Pakistan and an occupation of Iraq.
Nuclear Attacks on Terrorist Targets: For years, Washington’s conventional wisdom has held that candidates for President are judged not by their wisdom, but rather by their adherence to hackneyed rhetoric that make little sense beyond the Beltway. When asked whether he would use nuclear weapons to take out terrorist targets in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Barack Obama gave the sensible answer that nuclear force was not necessary, and would kill too many civilians. Conventional wisdom held this up as a sign of inexperience. But if experience leads you to make gratuitous threats about nuclear use – inflaming fears at home and abroad, and signaling nuclear powers and nuclear aspirants that using nuclear weapons is acceptable behavior, it is experience that should not be relied upon.
Barack Obama’s judgment is right. Conventional wisdom is wrong. It is wrong to propose that we would drop nuclear bombs on terrorist training camps in Pakistan, potentially killing tens of thousands of people and sending America’s prestige in the world to a level that not even George Bush could take it. We should judge presidential candidates on their judgment and their plans, not on their ability to recite platitudes.
Vision: American foreign policy is broken. It has been broken by people who supported the Iraq War, opposed talking to our adversaries, failed to finish the job with al Qaeda, and alienated the world with our belligerence. Yet conventional wisdom holds that people whose experience includes taking these positions are held up as examples of what America needs in times of trouble.
Barack Obama says we have to turn the page. We cannot afford any more of this kind of bankrupt conventional wisdom. He has laid out a foreign policy that is bold, clear, principled, and tailored for the 21st century. End a war we should never have fought, concentrate our resources against terrorists who threaten America. End the counter-productive policy of lumping together our adversaries and avoiding talking to our foes. End the era of politics that is all sound-bites and no substance, and offer the American people the change that they need.
Barack Obama’s judgment is right. It is conventional wisdom that has to change.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, August 07, 2007 at 10:09 PM.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
6:35 AMYou don't honestly think that Gore and his people could have stopped the attacks on 9/11, do you?
No one listened to the warnings during Clinton's terms but suddenly Gore, with the same intelligence people in place, does?
That's flat out insane.
By the way, Gore lost in 2001, and every re-count proved it. GET OVER IT!
8:26 AM
Flounder,
Do you know who Richard Clarke is?
Are you familiar with the story behind the Presidential Daily Briefing from August of 2001.
Are you aware that Rumsfeld and Cheney were discussing how to link their plans to invade Iraq as early as September 12th?
People on the terrorism watch list were in the U.S., taking flying lessons, while there were multiple reports, from the FBI and overseas, that there were plans for an aerial suicide attack. This happened on Bush's watch. in 2001. If you'd like to pin that on Clinton and Gore, you have a far different understanding of both accountability and the space-time continuum than I do.
Good look with that.
BTW, I'll get over it as soon as the threat of a never-ending war with the Islamic world isn't hanging over the heads of my children and yours.
8:30 AM
good luck, not good look
we already know you're dashing
9:24 AM
So glad to see Flounder's drinking the Kool-Aid again.
Regarding the recount, if by "get over it," you mean, "stop caring about the fact that the will of the people was thwarted in the most egregious possible way," no can do.
As for the consequences of the Supreme Court's decision on Bush v. Gore, well, hell. Even if Gore would have been unable to prevent the events of September 11, you can damn well be sure his efforts would have focused on capturing Bin Laden instead of starting a war that a majority of the people on Flounder's side of the fence are being forced to admit was grossly mishandled, if not an outright mistake from the beginning.
And, as Sysm noted, it's our kids who will be paying the price.
9:24 AM
Oh, and Obama's mad cute, yo.
9:50 AM
I'd like to be able to buy non-poisonous food for my family, and non-lethal toys, and have clean drinking water, and breathe air that won't dissolve my lungs.
Will one of the candidates please do that for me? Thanks a bunch.
1:48 PM
Flounder and other conservatives, imagine this scenerio, if you will:
Bush wins the popular vote in 2000, but the electoral college vote depends upon the outcome of Florida, where Al Gore's brother, Jeb Gore, is governor. The election and subsequent recounts are overseen by the Secretary of State, a Democrat, who is a clueless but fervent supporter of Al Gore's campaign. Bush is initially declared the winner, but then Air America says Gore really won, and the other media outlets quickly follow suite. The final margin of victory is less than a thousand votes, so a recount is ordered.
In the following weeks, several reports surface regarding the suppression of votes in Republican counties in Florida. Several white evangelical Christians have been removed from the voting rolls for no reason. These reports are not investigated by either the fervent Gore supporter or Gore's brother, the governor.
Finally, the five Democrats on the Supreme Court outvote the four Republicans, ending the recounts and declaring Gore the winner. The next day, the wife of one of the Democratic justices is named to head the Gore transition team.
I'm sure Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Flounder would have just let all of that go.
2:08 PM
Every recount, Flounder? Even the ones where thousands of votes from black communities disappeared? Those recounts too?
I don't know if Gore being in office would have stopped the attacks, but I am 100% positive that Bin Laden would have been caught by now (hello, six years later and where is he?!) and the government would have found absolutely no compelling reason to invade Iraq.
8:32 AM
Sysm - Of course I know who Richard Clarke is. He is the guy that help formulate a plan against Al Qaeda after the embassy bombings in 1998. You know, the one that the Clinton administration never acted on?
As for the daily briefing, there was no specific threat that they could act on. Besides, bringing a knife or box cutter on a plane was OK on 9/11, but I've never heard anyone call out the FAA on that issue.
As for the hijackers, do you believe that they came into the country, enrolled in flight school and learned to fly somewhere between 1/20/01 and 9/11/01? Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi came into the country and enrolled in flight school in July 2000. Who was President then?
Tits - The will of the people prevailed through the electoral college. Sorry if you don't like the system, but it has worked for over 225 years so there is no sense changing it now.
Todd - I like that fairy tale.
Brooke - What about all of the absentee ballots from the servicemen that disappeared? I never hear anyone mention them. Also, how many of those missing black votes were made by some that the DNC gave a ride, lunch and cash to?
Ubie - As always, I'm with you.
11:09 AM
Very selective memory you have there, Flounder.
Less than two weeks after the Embassy bombings, President Clinton ordered "Operation Infinite Reach", which targeted cruise missiles against terrorist sites in Sudan and Afghanistan. So much for "never acted". There has been substantial controversy over whether the pharmaceutical plants targeted in Sudan were indeed involved in the manufacturing of chemical weapons or their components.
Specific threat? Jebus Christ. One of the principle ideas behind intelligence gathering is "gathering". The administration avoided dealing with Al Qaeda, and was more set, from Day 1, to engage in a war in Iraq.
Zacarais Moussaoui attended flight school from February to May of 2001. The flight instructors were wary of him, and they alerted the FBI. He was later arrested in Minnesota in August of 2001. The local agents asked the HQ office for authorization to search his laptop. They were denied their request over 70 times.
Hmmm. Presidential Daily Briefing warning of airborne terrorist attacks. Suspected terrorist takes flight training. Alert citizens notify the FBI. Well-intentioned FBI agents are stymied in their efforts to investigate.
August. 2001.
Blame Clinton all you want. Blame Clarke, if you feel like it. But this was a massive failure of a distracted, disorganized, dismissive administration, with a President that could hardly be interrupted from yet another vacation to look after the safety of its citizens.
And speaking of selective, I see you didn't correct me on the "dashing" comment.
Tits - it was stolen, fair and square. That's America, baby.
Ubie - Yes. Most of them. Actually.
Todd - Of course not. Something like that could never happen. Truth, Justice and the American Way , and all.
Brooke - Right there with you, baby. Flounder's point about overseas service ballots? The Florida Election Commission allowed overseas ballots to be counted, whether or not they were postmarked by the date of the Election, as long as they were received by the Friday of the following week. Service people tend to lean more conservative. It's a reasonable conjecture that these ballots contributed more to the Bush tally than Gore's. But the legitimacy of counting them, without postmarks, is questionable. It's, in fact, contrary to the Florida state law.
11:09 AM
If everybody's for that, why isn't it happening?
I know the answer to this, by the way. I'm just sayin'.
11:40 AM
I'll certainly agree with you that there were massive failures at every level before 9/11. Hell, there have been massive failures in the way the US has been dealing with radical Islam since the Carter administration.
And I'll even agree that ultimately the responsibility comes down to on whose watch the attacks occurred.
But...
In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim fanatics, killing five people and injuring hundreds.
Clinton did nothing.
In October 1993, 18 American troops were killed in a savage firefight in Somalia. The body of one American was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu as the Somalian hordes cheered.
Clinton responded by calling off the hunt for Mohammed Farrah Aidid and ordering our troops home. Osama bin Laden later told ABC News: "The youth ... realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat."
In November 1995, five Americans were killed and 30 wounded by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia set by Muslim extremists.
Clinton did nothing.
In June 1996, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Muslim extremists.
Clinton did nothing.
Months later, Saddam attacked the Kurdish-controlled city of Erbil.
Clinton lobbed some bombs into Iraq hundreds of miles from Saddam's forces.
In November 1997, Iraq refused to allow U.N. weapons inspections to do their jobs and threatened to shoot down a U.S. U-2 spy plane.
Clinton did nothing.
In February 1998, Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but called it off when the United Nations said no.
On Aug. 7, 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists.
Clinton did nothing, until...
On Aug. 20, Monica Lewinsky appeared for the second time to testify before the grand jury.
Clinton responded by bombing Afghanistan and Sudan, severely damaging a camel and an aspirin factory.
On Dec. 16, the House of Representatives prepared to impeach Clinton the next day.
Clinton retaliated by ordering major air strikes against Iraq, described by the New York Times as "by far the largest military action in Iraq since the end of the Gulf War in 1991."
The only time Clinton decided to go to war with anyone in the vicinity of Muslim fanatics was in 1999 – when Clinton attacked Serbians who were fighting Islamic fanatics.
In October 2000, our warship, the USS Cole, was attacked by Muslim extremists.
Clinton did nothing.
When you refuse to fight, your enemies are emboldened.
11:41 AM
...and yes, I am quite dashing.
12:24 PM
Flounder,
A rudimentary search of reputable information sites would show that almost all of your statements are incorrect. Laughably.
For a single starting point, try this
Snopes page, which cites further references.
As far as our withdrawal from Somalia, I'll agree with you up to a point. We didn't take revenge. But we also opted not to sacrifice more American lives for a people who didn't want us there.
2:04 PM
I find this verbal intercourse most stimulating.
6:45 PM
I find Tits McGee's stimulation to be most stimulating.
6:50 PM
I find the simultaneous stimulation of the two of you stimulating.
6:55 PM
Btw, Flounder.
It sounds as if many of your points are the kind of thing that's passed along as chain mail, or as talking points on right-wing talk shows.
I have a feeling that when you finally get angry enough about this - as many have on the right - and do some fact checking instead of relying on other people telling you the "facts", you'll be even more vehement than I about how poorly this Administration has done its job.
8:07 PM
Sorry to chime in so late.
But I can't call Chris Dodd a pussy. First, he is Irish. Second, his father was a prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials. Remember those? Remember when the USA did what was right? "That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury, stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason."
Nuremberg, says Dodd, was "the place where America's moral authority in the second half of the 20th century was born." That perishable resource has, he thinks, been squandered by Bush administration decisions inimical to the Constitution and international law.
Doesn't sound like a pussy to me. Sound absolutely rational - and I like it.
Regarding Obama, I do applaud his early positions against the war. It makes me feel I wasn't the only one watching Colin Powell at the UN and asking "What the hell is he talking about? This is hardly proof of WMD."
And I think Obama has balls. Dodd aside, he has to go against the pre-packaged Hillary machine, and as much as I would like to see Bill Clinton back in the White House, I also say "out with the old, in with the new."
Go O. And don't count Dodd out.
7:14 AM
How this administration has done it's job is not the issue that we were originally discussing. It was whether or not a Gore administration could have prevented 9/11.
I have reinforced my position as to why I don't believe that it could have prevented 9/11. You have basically called me a Hannity/Limbaugh parrot that puts too much credibility into chain e-mails.
Sticks and stones, my friend.
8:53 AM
Friend, that's the point.
You haven't reinforced it.
You've relied on conservative urban legends with no basis in fact.
But if that's proof to you, what you say is true versus what's known to be true, then it's highly unlikely that you'll be swayed.
So, how 'bout we move along?
9:09 AM
Robot - Yeah. I really liked what he said at last night's LOGO debate.
Wait. It was utterly Dodd-free.
At least Richardson went on there, even though he wasn't going to score any points. Dodd and Biden? Too safe. Too centrist.
9:10 AM
And the LiveBlogging(tm) by Ms. McGee was outstanding. Go on over there and read it.
9:46 AM
See, being the conspiracy theorist I am, I think the Bush Administration could've stopped the attacks... if they wanted to.
That's all I'll say about that.
In other news: I have 50 lbs. of ground beef in my freezer.
10:13 AM
And Dilf is nowhere to be found.
10:24 AM
50lbs of ground beef?
I'll be right over!
10:37 AM
I would like to know the whereabouts of DILF before I order my burger. I'm just sayin...
3:53 PM
I'm here. The 50 lbs in the freezer is Nick's dignity. He didn't need it anymore.
6:43 PM
I'm hungry.
And flattered! Thanks, Sysm!
So. Who wants to make out?
12:27 AM
Vaudeville has a killer, and it's name is the moving pictures.
5:22 PM
I never needed it. Dignity is for suckers.
» Post a Comment